We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists.  Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity?  Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection:  Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer?  Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb.  Was he a colossal failure?  Absolutely not.  Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply.  Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning.  Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time.  And even though at the time of the light bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity.  Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible.  And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies.  This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal--with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn't yet occurred to them.  (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data.  That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West.  But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature.  Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science.  The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied.  And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today?  The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn't supply them with computers.  A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp.  In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time.  Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little.  Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society.  This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were.  He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today.  He told us that we're all--men and women--created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon).  We're not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one--rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)--is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses--stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs--have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process.  This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity.  And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.

What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.  There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge, instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).  But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise is....hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling, confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, "It is important for us to remember that culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches. You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.  The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.

Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design.  Find out more about the film here. 

Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind. 

Listen to Part One.

Listen to Part Two. 

Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here.

How has the media affected our perception of abortion in America?

The media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice.  In my experience, most people are much more nuanced than that.  Many see themselves as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps.  If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose, but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted.  Others just haven’t thought much about abortion and many are just confused.

In addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing abortion.  That’s the most detrimental thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive dialogue.  One might say, “If everyone’s always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in?  Aren’t people tired of the topic?”  Some people are tired of the topic.  But not because we’ve really done it justice. 

I think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the abortion debate is dominated by angry activists.  Although these activists may be the most vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house.  Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue people debate.  It’s about real decisions people are making today.  And those decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed.  If we create a better dialogue as a culture, I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion.

Order from STR Amazon

One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask pro-lifers. You claim "they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes and external personas." (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life attitude that needs to be confronted? Pro-life activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their discussion of pro-choice concerns.  Chapter 11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns “human” concerns?  Can’t we agree with the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult circumstances of unplanned pregnancy?

Pro-choice advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s inevitable, since I am pro-life).  I attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes.  I do this as a matter of course in my conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying to agree with the other side.

At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position. Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the pro-life cause?

The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side.  This is the healthiest way to engage in dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others.  So, I see both study guides as a service to both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly.  I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause.  It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look at their own position first.  Perhaps the fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more deeply about their position.    

I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments.  The truth about abortion and the unborn will win the day, if it’s looked at carefully.  So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the debate.  There’s no danger in that.  Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should do this.  Far from harming the pro-life cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs. 

I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs.  But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position, they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as I’ve suggested in the guide.  Then it’s the pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly persuasive.  And if our best arguments don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all.  Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to the open heart. 

Underneath it all, there’s more here than the arguments.  When pro-choice advocates reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds.  Seeking common ground in the conversation gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe and gives each of us space to attend to them.

Order from STR Amazon

Stephen Wagner speaks to and trains a variety of audiences on pro-life and bioethics issues as part of the ministry of Stand to Reason. His new book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion, challenges advocates on both sides of the abortion issue to have more respectful and fruitful conversations. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. The conclusion of the interview will be posted on Thursday.

As the title indicates, the point of your book is to build common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Many people on both sides of the issue simply want to persuade their opponents- why should they be interested in finding common ground?

I don’t see a person who disagrees with me primarily as a sort of potential convert.  I see her as a human being.  Human beings deserve to be treated with respect; they deserve to be heard.  It’s troubling that some Christians take the Great Commission as a directive to think of non-Christians as “gospel fodder,” people who are only valuable if converted.  Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason coined that term and I’ve found it helpful in my thinking about the abortion debate.  I am a pro-life advocate, but I don’t see the pro-choice advocate simply as a future notch in my pro-life belt. 

Now, is it important to persuade people of the pro-life position?  I believe the pro-life position is true, and surely it’s vital to help people come to see it as true.  But if I don’t come with an attitude of listening and appreciating this human being as a fellow truth seeker, I’ll miss the forest for the trees…or the human for the ideas.  Since persuasion is important, though, common ground is all the more important.  It’s diplomatic common sense.  Take the pro-life volunteers I trained for a recent outreach in Arizona.  As we shared stories of our interactions, many of the volunteers shared about how common ground helped them move the dialogue forward to discuss disagreements in a productive way.  In the book I picture common ground as the fuel in a car.  You’ll need it at the beginning of a conversation.  And you’ll need to refuel with common ground along the way in order to keep the conversation moving.

Early on in the book you state, "I believe that you and I are both seeking truth, so we have at least one item of common ground." (p17) I suspect that some pro-lifers won't like this because that they believe pro-choicers are more interested in convenience than truth. Why should we believe people we disagree with are interested in seeking truth? Do you honestly believe every person you talk with is seeking truth?

Anyone who’s spent even a few hours talking to college students, or people of any age for that matter, knows that many people value convenience or pleasure or entertainment more than the search for truth.  That’s uncontroversial and I’d be a fool to claim otherwise.  I think it’s also uncontroversial, though, that every human seeks truth on some level.  You can be just as certain that the college student who seems to only care about sex or entertainment also cares deep in his soul about knowing what’s true.  No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I’d really like to find someone who will deceive me today.”  People care about not being deceived, and conversely, they care about knowing the truth.  Our job, as those who believe there’s truth about abortion, is to help people bring their innate love for truth to the surface, so they can fix their conscious gaze on it and evaluate their beliefs.

You spend most of your time in the book exploring 25 questions you believe will help build common ground. Why are questions so important in this endeavor?

It’s interesting that you would use a question to ask why questions are so important! 

Questions are the only way that dialogue happens.  It’s the way we signal to others that we want to hear their opinion.  It’s also one way to signal that we are positioning ourselves as partners rather than enemies (although this also requires asking the question with a certain kind of attitude).  I framed the content of the book in a series of questions because I wanted to help the reader see in a tangible way how to start a conversation and how to keep it productive.  Asking people what they think and why is much more likely to help them change their minds than telling them they are wrong.

The first question you pose in an effort to build common ground is "What do you think about late-term abortion?" You cite a 2003 Gallup poll that suggests "68% of Americans oppose abortion in the second trimester and 84% oppose it in the third trimester." (p39) Why do you think these polls statistics are so high?

Your question is a great one…to ask anyone we’re in dialogue with.  “If you are against late-term abortion, or think it should be illegal…why?”  I think responses to that question are varied.  Many people just think the unborn is a baby at this point.  Some people think the fetus in the second or third trimester looks like older human beings.  Essentially, “It looks like me, so I’m repulsed by killing it.”  Others cite the fact that the fetus likely has higher cortical activity in the late second and third trimester.  So, this question gets us quickly back to the main issue in the abortion debate: Is the unborn a human being who has the same rights as the rest of us?  Many say “yes” in the last half of the pregnancy.

You note that we often hear this common sentiment presented in the media: "The majority of Americans are 'pro-choice' and oppose restrictions on abortion." (p62) Do you believe there is a 'pro-choice' bias in the media?

I’m not sure I’d put it that way.  I think the media’s treatment of the abortion issue shows a “pro-shallow” bias and a “pro-controversy” bias.  People in the media usually have only seconds to communicate ideas and must use sound bites.  Plus, on television, a simplistic representation of extremes plays better than complex dialogue.   So, it’s easy to report poll results, but thorough analysis takes too long.  Neil Postman was right when he criticized the television medium as being intrinsically an entertainment medium that makes it difficult to get accurate facts.  People in the media could minimize this liability, though, by only publicizing polls that ask specific questions about specific abortions at specific times in pregnancy.  Only then can we really understand what people think.

But the fault is not all the media’s.  Pollsters typically serve up polls that ask very vague questions about whether people are for or against abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against Roe v. Wade.  As I explain in the book, the polls rarely define what all of these terms and court decisions mean, so the poll results actually portray an inaccurate picture of public opinion.  But when the media publicizes this inaccurate picture, it becomes a part of our collective consciousness about public opinion on abortion.  We come to believe that what the media reported is “just the way it is.” 

The most serious problem with polls and the media, though, is not the polls or the media.  It’s us, the viewers.  If many of us believe these shallow and inaccurate public opinion polls, it’s our own fault.  We should be more careful.

(Warning:  Spoilers ahead, touching on the last couple seasons.  If you don't watch Lost, turn off your computer now and go rent Season One!)

I've mentioned before that I've always been interested in stories that involve time travel of some sort, so I've enjoyed the direction Lost began to take last season.  But there's something different about this series.  Normally, the type of time travel described in a story will fall into one of two categories:  1) The people who go back in time change things, thereby creating a new future or even a new parallel universe (e.g., Back to the Future), or 2) The people go back in time, but the actions they take there don't change anything in the future because it was always the case that their actions in the past led up to the future they've always known.  That is, time is set--all of history already happened, and they already acted as a part of it (e.g., the ending of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure). 

The time travel in Lost, on the other hand, describes a third kind of time--one governed by Providence or fate.  Certain characters go back in time and can change things (history is still fluid, as it is in Type 1), but no matter what they do, they can't ultimately thwart the purpose of God or fate (just who is in charge remains to be seen).  So, Desmond can keep changing the future by repeatedly saving one of the characters from death, but eventually, the death of that character will be accomplished by the one who is governing the flow of history, moving it in a precise direction for a purpose.

It would seem, at first glance, that J.J. Abrams (the creator of Lost) believes in God or some sort of designer.  But, as with his other work (e.g., Alias), he creates a scenario that I suspect reflects a kind of battle going on in his own head:  Some characters see intelligent design and/or evidence of the supernatural in what's happening, and some see only naturalistic explanations.  In Lost, that inner-Abrams battle is characterized as "faith" vs. "science," Locke vs. Jack, purpose vs. random circumstances.  What's interesting is that you're never quite sure which side will win, or even which side should win.

It's as if Abrams wants the supernatural to be true, but he can never quite get there because he loves science and can't see a way to bring the two into harmony--and even though he feels a pull towards the supernatural, he's a little suspicious of the people who embrace it.  They seem somewhat...unstable.  So he keeps the two perspectives (supernatural and natural) existing side by side, almost as two separate stories, with each pretending the other doesn't exist--never touching, except to occasionally butt heads.

Sounds like Abrams's ideas are a good reflection of what our culture has done with religion and rationality (which they wrongly equate with naturalism), and it's a sad, compartmentalized way to live.  The two can be brought together; we can live as whole, integrated people who embrace God and rationality because they embrace each other in an integrated, whole reality.  "Live together, die alone," right?  Someone send this man a copy of Total Truth.

A friend alerted me to a description of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right after the author, E. J. Dionne Jr., was featured on an hour of the Hugh Hewitt Show.  From the publisher, Princeton University Press: 

The religious and political winds are changing. Tens of millions of religious Americans are reclaiming faith from those who would abuse it for narrow, partisan, and ideological purposes. And more and more secular Americans are discovering common ground with believers on the great issues of social justice, peace, and the environment. In Souled Out, award-winning journalist and commentator E. J. Dionne explains why the era of the Religious Right--and the crude exploitation of faith for political advantage--is over.

Now, this is amazing.  If you vote on the right because you believe in those positions--and, in fact, believe they better reflect Christian values and goals--you are "selling out," and "abusing faith," and (from the next paragraph) you are a "prop for the powers that be" who is being "crudely exploited for political advantage."  But all this would be over if you would only learn to vote on the left!  If you favor positions on the left for exactly the same reasons, then you're just doing the right thing.  I think I know why people like Dionne are unable to see the unbelievable hypocrisy of this, and I'll explain in a moment.  But first, another excerpt:

Based on years of research and writing, Souled Out shows that the end of the Religious Right doesn't signal the decline of evangelical Christianity but rather its disentanglement from a political machine that sold it out to a narrow electoral agenda of such causes as opposition to gay marriage and abortion.  With insightful portraits of leading contemporary religious figures from Rick Warren and Richard Cizik to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Dionne shows that our great religions have always preached a broad message of hope for more just human arrangements and refused to be mere props for the powers that be.

The idea that all politically conservative Christians care about is abortion and same-sex marriage is an embarrassingly misguided one, and yet very widespread (I believe this goes back to the left's unwillingness to understand people on the right or take them at their word).  Dionne is honestly unaware that people could possibly think that the issues of justice (including economic) and social good are all better addressed by conservative positions than liberal ones.  Have they ever even heard of the Acton Institute?  No, for Dionne and many of the religious left, the only possibility is that conservative leaders have deviously trapped gullible religious people in a "narrow electoral agenda."

One has to make a deep, unexamined assumption to end up with this inexcusable blindness.  The assumption is:  liberal policies are obviously moral and conservative policies are obviously immoral.  Therefore, they conclude, if any religious person thought about anything other than abortion and same-sex marriage, then naturally, he would be on the left instead of the right.  Therefore, widening his scope of issues would keep him from voting for conservative candidates and thereby becoming a "prop" of the right.  (How it could be that taking on and promoting uniquely leftist policies would not simply cause these newly leftist Christians to become "props" of leaders on the left is never actually explained.)

It's amazing--and a little scary--how rarely people on the religious left examine themselves and their rhetoric and how little they understand conservatives.  This doesn't bode well for robust and productive debate anytime in the near future.